I would like to talk about EOT support in WebKit.
http://www.w3.org/Submission/EOT/
EOT is an alternate file format for delivery of fonts using the @font-
face directive. It is supported by Internet Explorer on Windows.
Microsoft has been trying to push it as a standard instead of allowing
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:35 AM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this to be one of those rare cases. Before making this
decision, however, I would like to hear from representatives for the
other WebKit ports. In the absence of any strong vendor support, I do
not believe we
On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
I'm not convinced that supporting EOT in the no-DRM way Hixie
proposes is harmful, although I wish it weren't needed.
My problem with this idea is that it's one thing to support a DRM-free
open format. It's another thing entirely to
Thank you Brett,
I was hoping for a everything under directory X reply or perhaps some
empty class templates to fill with code, but I guess its not so simple
(it never is :) ).
Anyway, Thank you again, I'll take a look at it during the weekend.
Brett Wilson wrote:
The Chromium code that
On Oct 17, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Amanda Walker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big problem is if you support it, EOT wins. We may as well
remove
the TTF code path from the tree. EOT is unwieldy to use, doesn't
support the full range of TTF,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's important to recognize that if you flip the EOT switch, you're going
to end up using EOT over TTF in many cases. In fact if IE *does* in end up
skipping TTF files properly, the font you get in Chrome would actually
On Oct 17, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's important to recognize that if you flip the EOT switch, you're
going to end up using EOT over TTF in many cases. In fact if IE
*does* in end up skipping TTF files
On Oct 17, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Amanda Walker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 5:52 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 17, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Amanda Walker wrote:
EOT is irrelevant to the technical and operational advantages of
TTF.
That's simply not true. In order to avoid using
On 18 Oct 2008, at 12:11 am, David Hyatt wrote:
EOT would be served by the Web site in order to be IE-compatible. If
EOT is listed first and you support it, then you have to use it. You
can't prefer TTF if it's #2 in the list, since that violates the
@font-
face specification, which states
On Oct 17, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Amanda Walker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big problem is if you support it, EOT wins. We may as well
remove
the TTF code path from the tree. EOT is unwieldy to use, doesn't
support the full range of TTF,
On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:02 PM, David Hyatt wrote:
On Oct 17, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's important to recognize that if you flip the EOT switch, you're
going to end up using EOT over TTF in many cases. In
On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Amanda Walker wrote:
Agreed--and I'll repeat that I don't like eot; I was just surprised
by Dave's reaction (which I now have more insight into :-))
I think Dave may have stated things a bit hyperbolically. But I think
it is true that EOT support in other
12 matches
Mail list logo
